Literature DB >> 22740781

The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy.

Kenneth L Mossman1.   

Abstract

There is considerable interest in revisiting LNT theory as the basis for the system of radiation protection in the US and worldwide. Arguing the scientific merits of policy options is not likely to be fruitful because the science is not robust enough to support one theory to the exclusion of others. Current science cannot determine the existence of a dose threshold, a key piece to resolving the matter scientifically. The nature of the scientific evidence is such that risk assessment at small effective doses (defined as <100 mSv) is highly uncertain, and several policy alternatives, including threshold and non-linear dose-response functions, are scientifically defensible. This paper argues for an alternative approach by looking at the LNT debate as a policy question and analyzes the problem from a social and economic perspective. In other words, risk assessment and a strictly scientific perspective are insufficiently broad enough to resolve the issue completely. A wider perspective encompassing social and economic impacts in a risk management context is necessary, but moving the debate to the policy and risk management arena necessarily marginalizes the role of scientists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALARA; LNT; policy; radiation protection; science

Year:  2011        PMID: 22740781      PMCID: PMC3375486          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.11-017.Mossman

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  13 in total

1.  Is the linear-no-threshold hypothesis appropriate for use in radiation protection? Favouring the proposition.

Authors:  D J Brenner
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 2.  Checking the foundation: recent radiobiology and the linear no-threshold theory.

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 3.  On radiation, paradigms, and hormesis.

Authors:  L A Sagan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-08-11       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  What can epidemiology tell us about risks at low doses?

Authors:  J S Puskin
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Perspective on the use of LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Authors:  Jerome S Puskin
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Reverse engineering of regulatory networks in human B cells.

Authors:  Katia Basso; Adam A Margolin; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Ulf Klein; Riccardo Dalla-Favera; Andrea Califano
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  The victims of chernobyl in Greece: induced abortions after the accident.

Authors:  D Trichopoulos; X Zavitsanos; C Koutis; P Drogari; C Proukakis; E Petridou
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-10-31

8.  Mortality among residents of Uravan, Colorado who lived near a uranium mill, 1936-84.

Authors:  John D Boice; Sarah S Cohen; Michael T Mumma; Bandana Chadda; William J Blot
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2007-08-29       Impact factor: 1.394

9.  A survey of physicians' breast cancer early detection practices.

Authors:  D Albanes; G B Weinberg; L Boss; P R Taylor
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Yiwey Shieh; Ian Thompson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.